JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 23.7.1985, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 7/85, whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under: U/s. 326 read with 149, Indian Penal Code 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine, one month's R.I. U/s. 323, read with 149, Indian Penal Code 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default of payment of fine, 15 days R.I. U/s. 324/149, Indian Penal Code 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine, one month's R.I. U/s. 325, read with 149, Indian Penal Code 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-each, in default of payment of fine, one month's R.I. U/s. 148, Indian Penal Code 1 year's R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/- each, and in default of payment of fine, one month's R.I. 2. The brief facts of this case are that, an incident had taken place on 12.11.1984 at 06:a.m., and a report with regard to the same had been lodged by Dayoda (PW/2) at police Station Rajgarh. The said report was registered as an F.I.R. No. 214/84 for the offences U/s. 147, 148, 149, 324, 307 and 302 Indian Penal Code Thereafter, the investigation commenced and police filed challan against the accused-appellant for the offences U/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and-302 Indian Penal Code The case was then committed before the court of Sessions Alwar wherein the charges were framed against the accused-appellants, who denied the same and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution produced 14 witnesses before the trial court. Out of the said witnesses Shiyaram, PW/4, Sukhpal PW/5 and Bhikam Singh PW/7 were declared hostile by the prosecution as they did not support its case. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded who denied the commission of the offences as well as the their involvement in the alleged occurrence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned court held that no offence under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code had been proved against the accused-appellant. However, the learned trial court while passing the judgment on 23.07.1985 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as indicated above. 3. On conclusion of the trial, the learned court held that no offence under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code had been proved against the accused-appellant. However, the learned trial court while passing the judgment on 23.07.1985 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as indicated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in passing the impugned whereby convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant whereas the substantial part of the evidence of the prosecution was not supported by their own witnesses, as for instance, PW-4, 5 and 7. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. As regards the remaining witnesses, the learned counsel submits that they were all highly interested persons and therefore their testimony should have been discarded by the learned trial Court. He has further submitted that the statements of the other witnesses suffer from serious infirmities and material contradictions and on that count the learned trial court should have rejected their testimony muchless to say record the finding on that basis. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident and the learned trial Court has itself held that it has not been conclusively proved as to who amongst the accusedappellants had inflicted injury by the sharp edged weapon. Therefore, it has been submitted that the offence under Section 326 read with 149 Indian Penal Code is also not made out in the instant case. It has also been submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the formation of unlawful assembly by the accused-appellants and as such provision under Section 149 Indian Penal Code is not at all attracted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the judgment, passed by the learned Court below, has submitted that the judgment given on 23.07.1985 is a well considered one and detail reasonings/findings have been given by the learned trial Court while convicting the accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences. He has further submitted that as the learned trial Court has itself acquitted the accused-appellants of the charges which were found not proved and has convicted only for the remaining 4 charges, goes to show that a proper analysis of the evidence on record and after judicious application of mind that the trial Court has passed the under challenge. 5. He has further submitted that as the learned trial Court has itself acquitted the accused-appellants of the charges which were found not proved and has convicted only for the remaining 4 charges, goes to show that a proper analysis of the evidence on record and after judicious application of mind that the trial Court has passed the under challenge. 5. I have taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and also perused the record of the trial. The impugned passed by the learned trial Court goes to show that it has taken into consideration the evidence on record thoroughly. He has rightly come to the conclusion in respect of all the offences which have not been found proved against the accused appellants and those which had been proved by the prosecution. The learned trial Court has not only considered the evidence but had simultaneously taken into account the settled principles of law and has very meticulously dealt with every and each circumstance of the case. Therefore, in my considered opinion, I do not find error in the impugned passed by the learned trial Court. 6. However, incident had taken place on 12.11.1984 and as such 23 years have already passed. The accused had been convicted for the offence under Section 326 read with 149 Indian Penal Code In my view, taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the accused-appellants is modified to the one already undergone, which is more than 8 months. 7. In the result, the conviction awarded to the accused-appellants is confirmed and the sentence is modified, as indicated above. 8. Consequently, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.Appeal disposed of accordingly. *******